If Agassi was in his prime, what rank would he be?

Let's say that Agassi is in the prime of his career and that he's playing against the current top field. What rank would he be?

Personally, I can't see him getting past #4 in the world. The current top three (and Nadal, if he can be counted) seem like they've taken tennis to an entirely new level. Even though someone like Murray is definitely not a greater player than Agassi in that he's less accomplished, I think his level of tennis right now is better than anything Agassi could achieve.

I don't think he be quite at the level of Murrkovic. It's questionable if peak Agassi could take present day Federer. Maybe not, but great grandfather aged Agassi was able to take sets off young Fed at slams.

I don't think he be quite at the level of Murrkovic. It's questionable if peak Agassi could take present day Federer. Maybe not, but great grandfather aged Agassi was able to take sets off young Fed at slams.

Click to expand...

Yet Roger Federer is STILL ranked over Andrew Mugray...

Would have beaten him at Aussie too if he hadn't had a 5 setter against Tsonga in the QFs.

Probably #2 behind Djokovic, if not even possibly #1. A really old Agassi was pushing peak Federer to the limit, so prime Agassi would be ranked above a quite old Federer IMO, as long as he wasnt in one of his slumps. Murray isnt really better than prime Agassi on any surface to this point, I guess fast hard courts, grass, and indoors they are reasonably close, while prime Agassi is way better on slower hard courts and clay both. Nadal hasnt played for 8 months, so he is automatically ranked lower by default. Prime Djokovic and prime Agassi are closely matched on all surfaces. Probably the 2 best ever on slow hard courts, and similar on clay, grass, faster hard courts, as far as playing levels.

How consistant was Agassi at his peak? He'd certianly be capable of hanging with and beating the top guys on any given day. He'd have probably beaten Murray or Federer at the AO this year. I'd say Federer or Murray from this years Wimbledon would have toppled him on grass though for example. Tough to call.

Federer may have pulled out a win versus Murray at the AO if he didn't run out of steam abit in the fifth. But Murray could have won that match in straights too, he was flatout playing better tennis. Federer is just very good at forcing matches to go the distance even when he's not playing his best.

Yeah it didn't happen so of course Murray's victory was totally deserved. Federer should have finished Tsonga off more quickly if he wanted to win the SF...although it helps to play the unseeded Chardy like Murray did rather than world #7 Tsonga...

He is certainly not as good as fed and nadal (in shape) and god nole was also something else.

But I can see him beating murray. Even in his mid 30s he still played at a similar level as prime roddick and hewitt did who were not that much worse than murray.

I think a prime agassi could have beaten murray.

Click to expand...

Roddick and Hewitt shouldn't be compared to Murray at all. They're much worse players and they failed pretty hard in an era that really only had one good player in it. Murray on the other hand is successful in an era dominated by three players who could all potentially be GOAT contenders.

And anyway, I think people are hyping up old-man Agassi's feats against Federer too much. He might have taken him to five sets, but that doesn't make him anywhere near Prime Fed on an average day. You can't just look at one match and use that as your sample size.

Well this era is much much tougher than the past. And as Agassi himself has stated, he would be struggling to maintain a top 5 ranking today. Prime Sampras would probably be around #11, or 12 given the court speeds today, which would favour the more talented Agassi over Sampras

Well this era is much much tougher than the past. And as Agassi himself has stated, he would be struggling to maintain a top 5 ranking today. Prime Sampras would probably be around #11, or 12 given the court speeds today, which would favour the more talented Agassi over Sampras

Roddick and Hewitt shouldn't be compared to Murray at all. They're much worse players and they failed pretty hard in an era that really only had one good player in it. Murray on the other hand is successful in an era dominated by three players who could all potentially be GOAT contenders.

And anyway, I think people are hyping up old-man Agassi's feats against Federer too much. He might have taken him to five sets, but that doesn't make him anywhere near Prime Fed on an average day. You can't just look at one match and use that as your sample size.

Click to expand...

You underrate Roddick and Hewitt by alot. Roddick beat Murray in 09 remember and has a winning h2h with Djokovic. They only "failed hard because they had to contend with prime Federer.

His chances at the French would be about the same as Federer's at his current level, which is vastly behind Nadal and somewhat but still significantly behind Djokovic. His chances at Wimbledon would be about the same as Djokovic's, behind Federer, Nadal, and Murray. I doubt he'd win either one of those events, even in his prime of primes, in 2011-present (although maybe 2010 when Djokovic and Federer were both less than spectacular). He'd be up there with Djokovic and Murray as favorites for the U.S. Open and especially the Australian, though, so while he'd likely have mostly semifinal finishes at the two European slams, he'd probably make finals and win trophies at the two hard court slams. So I imagine his ranking would be around 2 or 3, depending on the form of other guys like Federer, Nadal, and Murray, but he'd probably be stuck behind Djokovic in his current form since Djokovic is more consistent than Agassi was even in 1995 and 1999, his best years.

Actually, looking at it more closely, it's eerie how similar Agassi's and Djokovic's careers have been so far. Consistent but far from dominant on clay and grass, lots of finals at the U.S. Open, but mostly runner-ups, and dominance at the Australian.

Actually, looking at it more closely, it's eerie how similar Agassi's and Djokovic's careers have been so far. Consistent but far from dominant on clay and grass, lots of finals at the U.S. Open, but mostly runner-ups, and dominance at the Australian.

Click to expand...

If Djokovic wins 1 FO and 1 more USO, he will have exactly the same GS record as Agassi.

Give Murray some credit, he played great! Federer won two close sets, Murray was much more convincing

Click to expand...

Murray did play very well, I was impressed by his aggressive ball striking. But Federer wasn't moving that well out there and IMO there's a good chance there could have been a different result if they had had equally easy/tough draws.

Murray did play very well, I was impressed by his aggressive ball striking. But Federer wasn't moving that well out there and IMO there's a good chance there could have been a different result if they had had equally easy/tough draws.

Click to expand...

Federer in his prime never used to look tired after 5 setters, yet he didnt have to live with doping claims.

I think Agassi would struggle in this era, the same way Djokovic and Murray would in his era, the game is just too different. Although saying that he probably would be top 5 and a have a few slams just not as great as his actual career.

Let's say that Agassi is in the prime of his career and that he's playing against the current top field. What rank would he be?

Personally, I can't see him getting past #4 in the world. The current top three (and Nadal, if he can be counted) seem like they've taken tennis to an entirely new level. Even though someone like Murray is definitely not a greater player than Agassi in that he's less accomplished, I think his level of tennis right now is better than anything Agassi could achieve.

What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

I think he'd have a real hard time with the top 4. He had said there was no way he could have beat Federer, and said "there is no where to go with Federer, no opening or weakness", with the Gazelle type play and return of the other 3 guys, could it be "He had no where to go" as well?

Agassi was great, I think being able to play so close to a prime Fed I'd favor him over the other 3, but we are splitting hairs.

I think he'd have a real hard time with the top 4. He had said there was no way he could have beat Federer, and said "there is no where to go with Federer, no opening or weakness", with the Gazelle type play and return of the other 3 guys, could it be "He had no where to go" as well?

Agassi was great, I think being able to play so close to a prime Fed I'd favor him over the other 3, but we are splitting hairs.

Click to expand...

fed is a terrible match up for agassi. he's just too good at dictating play and breaking up agassi's rhythm. I think that peak agassi would beat pusher murray more often than not and win against joker often as well.

Prime Agassi (92-95, 99-01).. #1 or #2 right now.. Easily. Hes a better all hardcourter then anyone else on tour today between the USO and AO. And is just as good as anyone on grass right now (aside from Federer and perhaps a healthy Nadal), and would be a top player on clay and indoors

Agassi would be even more successful in this era then he was in the 90s-00s since there would be no fast courts

Probably 10-11 slams at least..

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. He's got Djokovic to challenge him at the Australian, Nadal who he would never beat at the French (and if he did, Federer and Djokovic are still above him), and he'd most likely not be able to luck out and play a headcase like Goran in a Wimbledon final. It's likely he wouldn't win the career slam and possible he wouldn't win a single slam off hard court (although it's also possible he would). His success at the U.S. Open would probably increase, though. No one's been dominant there since Federer's begun to decline, so Agassi wouldn't run into a Sampras-caliber player time and time again like he did in his real career.

Well Federer DIDN'T win and looked tired in the 5th set...so what is your point? Dopeovic is a way more obvious doping candidate than Federer is.

Click to expand...

To me that's borderline slander. Look, can't stand Djoke, I'm the biggest Fed fan on the planet, but to say that Fed at 25 didn't have as much stamina as Djoke, or that because Djoke does well he's "A better candidate", it's just bias.

Djoke is a HERO in Serbia, I understand now why many go crazy with the slightest of criticism, I mean leave the guy alone, just say "Don't like him", and move on, clearly he's an awesome player.

fed is a terrible match up for agassi. he's just too good at dictating play and breaking up agassi's rhythm. I think that peak agassi would beat pusher murray more often than not and win against joker often as well.

I think he'd have a real hard time with the top 4. He had said there was no way he could have beat Federer, and said "there is no where to go with Federer, no opening or weakness", with the Gazelle type play and return of the other 3 guys, could it be "He had no where to go" as well?

Agassi was great, I think being able to play so close to a prime Fed I'd favor him over the other 3, but we are splitting hairs.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this assessment. If Agassi could blend his early career shotmaking with his late career fitness, consistency and percentage tennis, maybe #2 or#3. However, he beats none of them on clay. Honestly, AO and US Open are probably his best chances to compete. US summer HC series would be the meat of Agassi's season. Similar to Roddick.

Agassi loves to blow smoke up these guys asses. Just to avoid giving Sampras his just due. Sure, they are the 4 fittest, fastest, most athletic pattern baseliners the game has ever seen. But their skill level and competitive desire is not above the champions of the past. They've perfected the baseline game and raised the bar on stamina and athleticism in tennis.

Djokovic would be the most difficult for Agassi. Djokovic is sort of like a blend of Lendl and Kafelnikov/Safin, IMO. Agassi would need all his weapons and a bag full of tricks for pull this off. Agassi played Nadal and Federer competitively as an old man. You can imagine he could give them all they want, in his prime.

I tend to agree with this assessment. If Agassi could blend his early career shotmaking with his late career fitness, consistency and percentage tennis, maybe #2 or#3. However, he beats none of them on clay. Honestly, AO and US Open are probably his best chances to compete. US summer HC season would be the meat of Agassi's season. Similar to Roddick.

Agassi loves to blow smoke up these guys asses. Just to avoid giving Sampras his just due. Sure, they are the 4 fittest, fastest, most athletic pattern baseliners the game has ever seen. But their skill level and competitive desire is not above the champions of the past. They've perfected the baseline game and raised the bar on stamina and athleticism in tennis.

Djokovic would be the most difficult for Agassi. Djokovic is sort of like a blend of Lendl and Kafelnikov/Safin, IMO. Agassi would need all his weapons and a bag full of tricks for pull this off. Agassi played Nadal and Federer competitively as an old man. You can imagine he could give them all they want, in his prime.

Well Federer DIDN'T win and looked tired in the 5th set...so what is your point? Dopeovic is a way more obvious doping candidate than Federer is.

Click to expand...

Djokovic looked pretty tired in the 5th set against Nadal last year. Nadal actually looked like he had more left in the tank than Djokovic, but he played like such a mug on huge points that it didn't matter. Djokovic was falling on his ass, praying to Jesus, and breathing really heavy after every point in the 5th set.

That 5th set at the USO was pretty poor from Djokovic also. Murray clearly outlasted him that day. I was not surprised, just look how tormented he is trying to hit (hideous) groundstrokes in windy conditions.